American Socialism Revealed

Published in The People's Daily
(China) on 25 June 2009
by Wang Chong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Dan Stein. Edited by Alex Brewer.
There is a new saying going around the internet recently — in 1949, only socialism was able to save China; in 1989, only China was able to save socialism; and now in 2009, only China is able to save capitalism.

Across the ocean in the United States, the American magazine Newsweek has made an astonishing claim. In a February issue, an article declared that “we are all socialist now.” Is America a socialist country? Absolutely not. Do President Barack Obama’s reforms contain elements of socialism? Absolutely.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, opponents labeled Obama a “socialist.” Fidel Castro has called Obama “comrade,” and Hugo Chavez has even joked that they should work towards perfecting socialism together.

Obama’s reforms, including social protections and greater regulation of financial institutions, definitely have socialist characteristics. The United States government is now General Motors’ largest stock holder. This company, which used to be symbolic of the American capitalist spirit, is now an enterprise collectively owned by the government and the people.

Financial reforms have been similar. The United States wants to make the Federal Reserve into a “super regulator,” and strengthen all aspects of its regulation of large financial institutions. It also plans to establish a new consumer financial protection bureau, giving it even more rights to regulate financial institutions. The American magazine Foreign Affairs believes that this is the “prescription” Marx would have given. It was Marx himself who called for the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

Even more socialist than Obama’s enterprise nationalization and stronger regulations are his proposed reforms to health insurance. The purpose is to give all Americans affordable health insurance. The means of attaining this are to establish a government controlled public health insurance plan which would compete with private health insurance plans. Obama has commented on this, saying that "part of the reason we want to have a public option is just to help keep the insurance companies honest,” and that he wanted to “make the health care market more competitive.” That is to say the United States government wants to create a society with universal health care. This is in sync with socialist ideas of ensuring everyone has food to eat and clothes to wear.

Of course, Obama’s health reforms are facing an unusually large resistance. This is because in the sphere of public and private health insurance, a lot of energy has gone into pushing for medical cost proliferation. A congressional majority is needed to overcome this force, and it seems almost impossible. The forces behind the proliferation and resistance to reform are medical and insurance circles and some major special interest groups.

To deal with these groups, starting June 10, Obama started a rigorous campaign reminiscent of the general election, where he has been holding a slew of town hall meetings. These meetings give ordinary people the chance to interact with government officials and have mobilized over two million grassroots supporters in fifty states, creating a national discussion.

Approaching the masses is a good way to make use of the people’s wisdom, an idea which was “patented” by socialist countries. President Obama is using this and finding it very handy. Apparently, whether it is a socialist country or a capitalist country, you must believe in the people and regard them as the foundation. Only then can your country become rich, powerful, and ultimately successful.

The leftist American publication The Nation has invited socialist-leaning progressives to comment on President Obama’s reform measures. Some have called on America to have a revolution, and others have directly said “capitalism is already dead.”

Obama himself does not feel this way, but regards himself as a liberal. Within the American political system there has always been a struggle between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives support “small government, big society,” while liberals put importance on the idea of “big government, small society”; conservatives act as the right wing, and liberals are left wing. Liberals leaning extremely to the left tend to like socialism. During America’s McCarthy era in the middle of the Cold War, leftist liberals suffered a lot of persecution. Therefore, being called a socialist generally is not very honorable.

Of course, the McCarthy era was short, and in most situations socialism is not taboo, and can now fundamentally be considered neutral. Marx’s work Das Kapital, which eschews capitalism, is required reading for many American high school students. After the Cold War, American academia systematically changed many textbooks, altering their ideological content.

That is to say, pragmatic Americans do not follow the beaten path on ideology. When looking at President Obama’s reforms, it is easy to think of what Deng Xiaoping said in the 1990s: “a market economy is not equal to capitalism. Just as capitalism uses plans, socialism can also utilize markets.” Now, America’s practices show that nationalization is not equal to socialism, and that capitalism can also utilize nationalization.

The biggest revelation from America’s new policies is that nothing is unique to only socialism or capitalism. Some ideas belong to all of human kind, and some values should be enjoyed by all people. It is like Premier Wen Jiaobao’s quote: “Democracy, legal systems, freedom, human rights, equality, universal fraternity, these are not the fruits of capitalism, but the contributions of all the world’s civilizations throughout our long history, and are the values that all of human kind should strive to attain.”





中青报:美国式社会主义的启示

王冲

2009年06月25日08:21 来源:《中国青年报》

有个顺口溜悄然在网络流传——1949年,只有社会主义才能救中国;1989年,只有中国才能救社会主义;2009年,只有中国才能救资本主义。

  在大洋彼岸的美国,论调竟然惊人相似。美国《新闻周刊》在2月中旬的一期封面上直接宣称:“我们现在都是社会主义者了。”美国是社会主义国家吗?毫无疑问,不是。奥巴马总统的改革有社会主义元素吗?毫无疑问,有。

  在竞选时,奥巴马就被对手称作“社会主义者”,被古巴领导人卡斯特罗引为“同志”,最近委内瑞拉总统查韦斯也开玩笑说:“来吧,一起搞社会主义吧!”

  奥巴马的改革措施中,对通用的破产保护、对金融机构的改革,无不折射出其社会主义特征。通用汽车最大的股东成了政府和工会,于是,这家象征美国资本主义精神的公司,成为“国家和集体所有制企业”。

   金融改革也是如此,美国要将美联储打造成“超级监管者”,全面加强对大金融机构的监管,还计划设立新的消费者金融保护署,赋予其超越目前监管机构的权 力。这一做法符合马克思的学说。在《共产党宣言》里,马克思预言了资本主义的金融危机。美国《外交事务》杂志估计,马克思开出的“药方”,将会是号召金融 市场的公有化,并“通过拥有国家资本和独享垄断权的国家银行,把信贷集中在国家手里”。

  比企业国有化和加强监管更具社会主义特色的,是奥巴马的医疗保 险改革。其目的是给所有美国人买得起的医疗保险,手段是设立政府负责的公共医疗保险计划,同私人保险业者竞争。奥巴马就此评论说:“如果私人保险公司和公 共医疗保险竞争,将使他们更诚实,也会让保费下降。”也就是说,美国要以政府之力建设“人人有医保”的社会,这完全符合社会主义“人人有饭吃、人人有衣穿 ”的理念。

  当然,奥巴马的医改,阻力之大非同一般。因为在联邦医疗保险和私人保险领域,一股深层次的力量推动了医疗成本的激增。要想 在国会组织一个多数联盟,提出一项法案来颠覆这种深层次的力量,几乎是不可能的。所谓深层次力量,就是医疗界、保险界和一些政客组成的利益集团,改革阻力 正是来自这些既得利益者。

  奥巴马的对策是,从6月10日开始,启动类似竞选总统的“拉票”活动,发表多场演讲,举行市政厅会议和民众交流,动员遍及全国的200万草根支持者在50个州展开宣传活动,掀起一场全国性的大讨论。

  走近人民群众,善于利用人民群众的智慧,本是社会主义国家的“专利”,美国的奥巴马总统用起这一招来竟然也得心应手。看来,无论是社会主义国家还是资本主义国家,只有想人民之所想、相信人民,以人为本,才能富强、成功。

  对奥巴马总统的改革举措,左派杂志《国家》曾经连续几期邀请社会主义者写文章参加讨论,有人号召美国来一次彻底的革命,有人干脆说“资本主义已经死了”。

   奥巴马自己不这么看,他认为自己是自由派。在美国政治体制里一直存有保守派和自由派之争。保守派支持“小政府、大社会”,自由派推崇“大政府、小社会” 理念;保守派为右翼,自由派为左翼,自由派的极左人士,往往对社会主义比较喜欢。在冷战背景下的麦卡锡时代,左翼自由派人士遭遇迫害,因此被封为社会主义 者通常不是什么光荣的事。

  当然,麦卡锡时代是短暂的,多数情况下,社会主义不是禁忌,基本上可以列入中性,马克思的《资本论》也是美国中学生的必读书目。冷战后美国教育界修改教科书,一大举措就是删除了众多有关意识形态的内容。

  这就是说,实用主义的美国人,对意识形态实际上不墨守成规。奥巴马总统的改革很容易让人想起邓小平20世纪90年代说过的话:“市场不等于资本主义,资本主义也有计划,社会主义也可以有市场。”而今,美国的实践也说明,国有不等于社会主义,资本主义也可以搞国有。

   这就是美国搞社会主义给我们的最大启示:没有什么事物为社会主义所独有,也没有什么事物为资本主义所独有,有些理念属于全人类,有些价值也为人类所共 享。正如温家宝总理所言:“民主、法制、自由、人权、平等、博爱,这不是资本主义所特有的,这是整个世界在漫长的历史过程中共同形成的文明成果,也是人类 共同追求的价值观。”
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Topics

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle